Aaryan @ Aashik Anant vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5913 Chatt

                                                                                        NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     CRA No. 723 of 2021

 • Aaryan @ Aashik Anant, S/o Shri Jagdish Anant, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
   Village Chirhutti, Police Station- Lormi District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. At
   Present        R/o   Karbala,   Police    Station    City   Kotwali,   District-   Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh.

                                                                              ---- Appellant

                                            Versus

 • State     of    Chhattisgarh    Through:     District   Magistrate     District-   Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh.


                                                                          ---- Respondent

21/09/2022 Mr. Dheerendray Pandey, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L. for the State/respondent.

No one appeared on behalf of the prosecutrix/victim though notice has been served.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021 which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2021 passed by learned ASJ/ First FTSC (POCSO), Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.89/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 363 of IPC RI for 5 years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 6 months

U/s 366 A of IPC RI for 5 years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 6 months

U/s 06 of POCSO Act 2012 RI for 10 years and to pay fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 1 year

(All sentences to run concurrently)

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. He further submits that prosecutrix is a consenting party and she herself went with the appellant. He also submits that Sunil Singh (P.W.-7) (father of the prosecutrix) has also stated that prosecutrix was aged about 18 years at the time of incident. He also submits that the appellant is in jail since 02.07.2021 and the appeal is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Hence, it is prayed that his application be allowed.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

After perusing the impugned judgment and considering the facts that prosecutrix is a consenting party and there was love affair between the applicant and her and also considering the statement of her father regarding the age of the prosecutrix and there is no likelihood of this appeal to come up for final hearing in near future, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2021 stands allowed.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11th November, 2022. He shall thereafter appear before the trial court on a date to be given by the Registry of this court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as given to him by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

Ruchi